Micron’s 1300 refreshes its entry-level SSDs with 96-layer NAND

Folks who sift through our SSD deals every week will no doubt be familiar with the Micron 1100. That drive was primarily intended as an HDD replacement for OEMs building low-cost PCs, but it found its way into the channel as a high-value offering for folks who want a bunch of solid-state storage. The price per dollar might continue to improve considering Micron's latest offering, the 1300.

In case it wasn't obvious, the 1300 is fundamentally the same drive as the 1100, just built with Micron's new 96-layer 3D NAND. Don't fret; this is still TLC flash, not QLC. Capacities are the same as the 1100: up to 1TB in M.2 form, and 2TB in a 2.5" case. The new SSDs are also more efficient thanks to the denser packaging.

Specifically, Micron says that the 1300 is 45% more efficient than a 5400 RPM laptop hard drive. The company also says that the drive draws just 75 mW in operation, though. That would make it about 21 times more efficient. We've asked Micron for clarification on that point.

(Update: Micron clarified for us that the drive does in fact draw 750 mW, not 75 mW. The lower number was a typo in the press release.)

There's no such confusion over the performance specs. Micron says the 1300 should perform sequential reads and writes at 530 MB/sec and 520 MB/sec, respectively. Random performance isn't bad for a SATA SSD, either, at 90K IOPS on reads and 87K IOPS on writes.

Those performance specs probably aren't setting your heart alight, but this drive shouldn't set your wallet alight either. Unfortunately, since they're meant for OEM machines, Micron didn't announce any pricing for the 1300s, but we expect you'll see them fall into the channel in the coming months.

Comments closed
    • Mr Bill
    • 5 months ago

    I hope these are a little faster nowdays. My first SSD was a Crucial Technologies and it was very slow compared to the Intel G2 series. I’ll have to read a recent TR review and see how they stack up against the Samsung Pro series SSD’s.

    • Chrispy_
    • 6 months ago

    75mW is it’s operational power draw, which may be 21 times more efficient than the 5400rpm laptop disk, but an HDD writes the data, and that’s it.

    Meanwhile, an SSD writes the data, then moves a whole bunch of stuff around to optimise the page layout, perform garbage collection, and refresh/wear-levelling duty.

    21 times lower power draw, but active for 14x longer than spinning rust, on average.

      • kuraegomon
      • 6 months ago

      Is your 14x number a guesstimate, or has someone actually done the research to produce said value? I would expect that the higher write-speeds of an SSD (particularly for internal operations that aren’t bound by SATA interface bandwidth) would offset the effect you’re talking about. Also, the internal operations you describe are 1/ incremental, and 2/ not going to occur on [i<]every[/i<] write. TL;DR: it's complicated, so lets not spitball quantizing the (admittedly quite real) effects you're discussing. I take it all back if you can provide references, of course.

        • kuraegomon
        • 6 months ago

        Doh! All you really need to do is use the average write-amplification factors, and the ratio of HDD write speed/SSD write speed (for each of random and sequential write scenarios) as multipliers, and you’ll be able to come up with a likely-not-terribly-horrible estimate of how a given HDD-SDD pairing will compare in terms of activity time for a given amount of data written.

        (Clarification: Of course we know the SSD will complete the initial write operation far more quickly – the “activity time” we’re trying to quantify includes all the ex post facto page layout optimization, garbage collection and wear leveling operations)

        According to some hasty googling, write amplification factors of 1-4 are reasonable for consumer workloads, so let’s use a WAF of 4. Let’s look at a sequential write scenario (which again puts HDDs in the best light) and assume a best case HDD write performance of 100 MB/s (for a typical 5400 RPM HDD), and 300 MB/s (actually rather bad for a modern SATA SSD).

        So for your HDD vs SSD comparison factor:
        4 (WAF) x 1/3 (HDD/SSD write speed ratio) = 1.33. I.e. an HDD will be (on average) 1.33 times as efficient writing a given amount of data sequentially, during a given time period. I.e. the SSD will be active 1.33x times longer to write a given amount of data – but with 21x lower power draw.

        Final power efficiency factor derived by this (egregiously spitballed) calculation?

        21 x 3/4 = 16.5x

        And I’m comfortable that the above represents a worst-case scenario – I favoured the HDD and penalized the SSD with every approximation.

          • Waco
          • 6 months ago

          I imagine that’s a worst-case scenario at best, given that WAF is generally pretty close to 1 to 1.5 in consumer workloads (and sometimes less than one due to internal compression algorithms).

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 months ago

        I used the numbers in the article; 45% and 21x efficiency savings, repectively. The calculation was simple given that we have no other numbers.

        It’s also possible that Micron are just quoting against the idle power of a laptop drive.

          • kuraegomon
          • 6 months ago

          I was specifically contending your “active for 14x longer” assertion, and I think I proved it wrong.

            • Chrispy_
            • 6 months ago

            It’s not an accurate figure in the first place. The only way you can calculate the power draw of the ‘5400 rpm laptop disk’ in the first place is by taking Zak’s number of 21 times faster and multiplying by 75mW.

            Why you’re contending it when it’s simple grade-school math based on vague numbers without many significant figures and assumptions about ambiguous wording is really quite odd.

            My interpretation was (21*0.075) / 1.45. I don’t know where Zak got the number 21 from, and there’s ambiguity in how Micron are stating efficiency. It’s either a 45% increase in efficiency (so 1/1.45 the power consumption) or it consumes 100-45% (so 55%) the power of the 2.5″ drive.

            Don’t overthink it, there’s insufficient information to do so, which means you’re just speculating, making assumptions, and guessing. “14x longer active time” is the answer to the above simple three-value formula to the same two significant figures as the input values. That could change if Micron answer Zak and clarify exactly what the power draw of the 5400 sample drive was, and whether the 75mW is an idle/average/median/peak consumption.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 6 months ago

      Micron got back to me and said that the 75 mW figure was incorrect, and it is in fact 750 mW.

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 months ago

        Makes more sense. laptop drives are 1-2W and 45% more efficient than that was never anywhere near 75mW.

        Did they clarify whether that was peak/median/average/idle power? 750mW is still a good value if that’s the average for a typical write workload. There are certain SSDs I ignore for ULV ultrabooks and tablets with small batteries and even smaller power consumption.

          • RAGEPRO
          • 6 months ago

          “Average active power” is the terminology they used.

    • JosiahBradley
    • 6 months ago

    They could make an infinite layer NAND package and it would still be capped at 1-2TB.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 6 months ago

      I do kind of wonder if they could top spinning rust for data density in a 3.5″ form factor. They apparently wouldn’t bother, but it’d be neat.

        • DPete27
        • 6 months ago

        I believe we’re at 100TB SSDs with the ExaDrive in a 3.5″ form factor.

      • chubbyhorse
      • 6 months ago

      How would we know? We’d never finish formatting it.

        • meerkt
        • 6 months ago

        Quick-format.

    • Waco
    • 6 months ago

    I’m pretty happy with my 2 TB 1100. It’s split as a boot drive (about 500 GB) and gaming overflow (for things that don’t fit on my RAID array) and performs admirably.

    • CasbahBoy
    • 6 months ago

    Boo at the 2.5″ form factor topping out at 2TB. I just need a 4TB 2.5″ TLC drive under like…$500 to complete my SFF desktop rebuild and finally be rid of spinning rust for mass storage for good.

      • stdRaichu
      • 6 months ago

      It wasn’t under $500 (and I think it’s currently available in the UK at about £750) but I’ve been happily using a 4TB Micron 5200 Eco in 2.5″ format for about a year now; I believe the range goes up to ~8TB. They’re basically an MX300 under the hood.

        • davidbowser
        • 6 months ago

        I like your idea better than mine. I went with a bunch of 2TB 1100 on a RAID card. It’s plenty fast, but I was really aiming for higher capacity.

          • CasbahBoy
          • 6 months ago

          Man, I nearly did the same thing with 3x 2TB, but lack of TRIM passthrough to member drives on Intel software RAID5 (running on a enthusiast desktop chipset here) put the kibosh on that plan. A lot of people recommended under-partitioning them to give garbage collection more to work with and keep performance up, but even if that actually helps on a modern drive it feels too much like a hacky workaround.

            • Waco
            • 6 months ago

            I have an 8-way RAID0 of 128 GB Sandisk Z400s drives. No underprovisioning. Performance is perfect unless I benchmark the snot out of it and I run it 90%+ full all the time for Steam game installs.

            The lack of TRIM is far overblown for anything other than OS drives under heavy usage.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 6 months ago

    The product brief on Micron’s site also gives the 20x more power efficient figure for “low power mode”:

    [url<]https://www.micron.com/-/media/client/global/documents/products/product-flyer/1300_sata_tlc_ssd_product_brief.pdf?la=en[/url<] [quote<]Class-leading power efficiency satisfies customers’ everincreasing expectations for longer battery life. Consuming less than 5mW in low power mode, the Micron 1300 uses significantly less power than that required by hard disk drives (HDDs). Over 20X less than HDDs in active mode. That’s more employee uptime![/quote<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This